Jan. 8 - What to do about the deepening quagmire of Iraq? The Pentagon’s latest approach is being called "the Salvador option"—and the fact that it is being discussed at all is a measure of just how worried Donald Rumsfeld really is. "What everyone agrees is that we can’t just go on as we are," one senior military officer told NEWSWEEK. "We have to find a way to take the offensive against the insurgents. Right now, we are playing defense. And we are losing." Last November’s operation in Fallujah, most analysts agree, succeeded less in breaking "the back" of the insurgency—as Marine Gen. John Sattler optimistically declared at the time—than in spreading it out.

Now, NEWSWEEK has learned, the Pentagon is intensively debating an option that dates back to a still-secret strategy in the Reagan administration’s battle against the leftist guerrilla insurgency in El Salvador in the early 1980s. Then, faced with a losing war against Salvadoran rebels, the U.S. government funded or supported "nationalist" forces that allegedly included so-called death squads directed to hunt down and kill rebel leaders and sympathizers. Eventually the insurgency was quelled, and many U.S. conservatives consider the policy to have been a success—despite the deaths of innocent civilians and the subsequent Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal. (Among the current administration officials who dealt with Central America back then is John Negroponte, who is today the U.S. ambassador to Iraq. Under Reagan, he was ambassador to Honduras.)

Following that model, one Pentagon proposal would send Special Forces teams to advise, support and possibly train Iraqi squads, most likely hand-picked Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Shiite militiamen, to target Sunni insurgents and their sympathizers, even across the border into Syria, according to military insiders familiar with the discussions. It remains unclear, however, whether this would be a policy of assassination or so-called "snatch" operations, in which the targets are sent to secret facilities for interrogation. The current thinking is that while U.S. Special Forces would lead operations in, say, Syria, activities inside Iraq itself would be carried out by Iraqi paramilitaries, officials tell NEWSWEEK.

Also being debated is which agency within the U.S. government—the Defense department or CIA—would take responsibility for such an operation. Rumsfeld’s Pentagon has aggressively sought to build up its own intelligence-gathering and clandestine capability with an operation run by Defense Undersecretary Stephen Cambone. But since the Abu Ghraib interrogations scandal, some military officials are ultra-wary of any operations that could run afoul of the ethics codified in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That, they argue, is the reason why such covert operations have always been run by the CIA and authorized by a special presidential finding. (In "covert" activity, U.S. personnel operate under cover and the U.S. government will not confirm that it instigated or ordered them into action if they are captured or killed.)

Meanwhile, intensive discussions are taking place inside the Senate Intelligence Committee over the Defense department’s efforts to expand the involvement of U.S. Special Forces personnel in intelligence-gathering missions. Historically, Special Forces’ intelligence gathering has been limited to objectives directly related to upcoming military operations—"preparation of the battlefield," in military lingo. But, according to intelligence and defense officials, some Pentagon civilians for years have sought to expand the use of Special Forces for other intelligence missions.

Pentagon civilians and some Special Forces personnel believe CIA civilian managers have traditionally been too conservative in planning and executing the kind of undercover missions that Special Forces soldiers believe they can effectively conduct. CIA traditionalists are believed to be adamantly opposed to ceding any authority to the Pentagon. Until now, Pentagon proposals for a capability to send soldiers out on intelligence missions without direct CIA approval or participation have been shot down. But counter-terrorist strike squads, even operating covertly, could be deemed to fall within the Defense department’s orbit.

The interim government of Prime Minister Ayad Allawi is said to be among the most forthright proponents of the Salvador option. Maj. Gen.Muhammad Abdallah al-Shahwani, director of Iraq’s National Intelligence Service, may have been laying the groundwork for the idea with a series of interviews during the past ten days. Shahwani told the London-based Arabic daily Al-Sharq al-Awsat that the insurgent leadership—he named three former senior figures in the Saddam regime, including Saddam Hussein’s half-brother—were essentially safe across the border in a Syrian sanctuary. "We are certain that they are in Syria and move easily between Syrian and Iraqi territories," he said, adding that efforts to extradite them "have not borne fruit so far."

Shahwani also said that the U.S. occupation has failed to crack the problem of broad support for the insurgency. The insurgents, he said, "are mostly in the Sunni areas where the population there, almost 200,000, is sympathetic to them." He said most Iraqi people do not actively support the insurgents or provide them with material or logistical help, but at the same time they won’t turn them in. One military source involved in the Pentagon debate agrees that this is the crux of the problem, and he suggests that new offensive operations are needed that would create a fear of aiding the insurgency. "The Sunni population is paying no price for the support it is giving to the terrorists," he said. "From their point of view, it is cost-free. We have to change that equation."

Pentagon sources emphasize there has been no decision yet to launch the Salvador option. Last week, Rumsfeld decided to send a retired four-star general, Gary Luck, to Iraq on an open-ended mission to review the entire military strategy there. But with the U.S. Army strained to the breaking point, military strategists note that a dramatic new approach might be needed—perhaps one as potentially explosive as the Salvador option.

I understand your point of view and rather then get into an argument that spirals nowhere I respectfully will say I think all options should be explored. We are still fighting Saddam in the insurgents and if you can't see the difference between these so called "death squads" and Saddam's thugs the argument is pointless.

First, to understand my position the ground rules must be set. My position is based on the belief that giving the power of democracy to a people is fundamentally more important then letting a sitting dictator and the few rule the many. Don't give me any mumbo-jumbo about us being the invaders and blah blah blah. That argument doesn't work with me.

So, going forward with that premise the insurgents that are fighting against such reform are best described as Saddam holdovers (Sunnis, the old ruling power) and outside trouble makers (AQ, etc.) that believe democracy is not a fundamental right of every human being.

That being said, once the insurgents throw out the rule of law and the will of the people all steps must be considered to eliminate them. If the insurgents were just voicing their opposition with sit ins or exercising freedom of speech peacefully then of course certain measures would not be necessary.

But since the insurgents have gone down a path which if allowed to continue would kill the innocent and throw out democracy all measures must be considered, play the game their way if you will.

There, that's pretty much my side of it. I believe in the mission and the idea that until democracy is introduced and grabs hold in that part of the world the have nots will always be attacking us. Simple as that.

First, to understand my position the ground rules must be set. My position is based on the belief that giving the power of democracy to a people is fundamentally more important then letting a sitting dictator and the few rule the many. Don't give me any mumbo-jumbo about us being the invaders and blah blah blah. That argument doesn't work with me.

That's my point....yes we did invade and I agree completely with the decision. The same way I agreed with Clinton on Bosnia. So don't give me the liberal view point that we are the aggressors and don't have a right there. That argument doesn't cut it with me and never will.

And I'm not sure how closely you can compare El Salvador with Iraq. My view is if necessary, do what is needed to kill the insurgents. They are the ones killing innocent Iraqi's that just want to live a normal life with a say in their government. Once the common Iraq population feels safe things will get better. Until then the war of fear the insurgents are fighting will rule the day.

That's my point....yes we did invade and I agree completely with the decision. The same way I agreed with Clinton on Bosnia. So don't give me the liberal view point that we are the aggressors and don't have a right there. That argument doesn't cut it with me and never will.

And I'm not sure how closely you can compare El Salvador with Iraq. My view is if necessary, do what is needed to kill the insurgents. They are the ones killing innocent Iraqi's that just want to live a normal life with a say in their government. Once the common Iraq population feels safe things will get better. Until then the war of fear the insurgents are fighting will rule the day.

1. I disagreed with Clinton on Kosovo. We were never intended to be the world's cop...and we ARE the aggressors, technically. We invaded them "pre-emptively", remember?

1. I disagreed with Clinton on Kosovo. We were never intended to be the world's cop...and we ARE the aggressors, technically. We invaded them "pre-emptively", remember?

2. I didn't compare them. The Pentagon did.

1. Well there's the difference between you and I. I think sometimes we have to stand up for the innocent of the world....especially if they are being murdered.

2. And I'm saying I really don't care if "death squads" hunt down those opposed to democracy in Iraq. It's ok by me, go for it. That was the intent of my first post. If there were bands of Americans in this country using roadside bombs to push their viewpoint I'd be for our government doing what it takes to eliminate them too.

Course I'm one of those rwnj's meme likes to point her finger at. I believe in capital punishment and the like for anyone that attacks the innocent. Death to 'em I say. But that's just me. Like I said this argument is spiraling nowhere because I believe in certain principles and you disagree. I'm not trying to change your mind.

1. Well there's the difference between you and I. I think sometimes we have to stand up for the innocent of the world....especially if they are being murdered.

2. And I'm saying I really don't care if "death squads" hunt down those opposed to democracy in Iraq. It's ok by me, go for it. That was the intent of my first post. If there were bands of Americans in this country using roadside bombs to push their viewpoint I'd be for our government doing what it takes to eliminate them too.

Course I'm one of those rwnj's meme likes to point her finger at. I believe in capital punishment and the like for anyone that attacks the innocent. Death to 'em I say. But that's just me. Like I said this argument is spiraling nowhere because I believe in certain principles and you disagree. I'm not trying to change your mind.

As I said in the OP, this COULD work. However, odds are (historically speaking) that this will turn into another El Salvador-style massacre.